Some employment/economic numbers from the last month/quarter/year.

[Direckshun]

As the recovery continues. There's a bunch of stuff on this but they don't all warrant their own threads so here's a compendium of economic information.

The economy last year experienced a net-improvement of 2.17 million jobs (private sector gained 2.24), which is better than every single year of the Bush Presidency except one (2005).

The jobs report of the fourth quarter of 2012 has been revised upward, now saying we added 600,000+ jobs from October through December.

The GDP actually contracted 0.1% in that quarter, however. The first contraction in 13 quarters -- though revisions will probably change that to a slight expansion -- largely because of Hurricane Sandy and vast layoffs in the defense sector.

The initial estimate is that we added 157,000 jobs in January. The unemployment rate actually jumped, however, from 7.8% to 7.9%. As the economy gets better, more people are entering the job market.

The government continues to be the main holder-backer of a faster recovery, as reduced government payrolls have weighed down employment figures.

The Institute for Supply Management said its index of Manufacturing activity grew to 53.1, according to the Institute for Supply Management, which is a big jump up.

The Dow jumped above 1,500 earlier this month. After today's jobs report, it launched above 1,400.

What's driving the jump up in employment? Mostly, construction, buoyed by about 30,000 new hires, which indicates more homes are being built.





You're welcome.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

For the small percentage of people who are aware that the purported decline in unemployment rates is primarily based on the mysterious rapid decline in "labor force participation rates" rather than the number of new jobs, the government has a ready and sensible-sounding explanation: the Boomers are beginning to retire in large numbers, and with an aging population, the percentage of adults who are in the workforce should logically be declining.

Based on in-depth analysis of the government's own numbers, we will present herein the true picture: 74% of the jobless who have been removed from unemployment calculations are in the 16-54 age bracket, with only 26% in the 55 and above bracket. Yes, the population is aging - but the heart of the workforce participation deception isn't about the old.


http://danielamerman.com/articles/2012/WorkC.html

I can smell the wires burning in his moonbat brain.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

For the small percentage of people who are aware that the purported decline in unemployment rates is primarily based on the mysterious rapid decline in "labor force participation rates" rather than the number of new jobs, the government has a ready and sensible-sounding explanation: the Boomers are beginning to retire in large numbers, and with an aging population, the percentage of adults who are in the workforce should logically be declining.

Based on in-depth analysis of the government's own numbers, we will present herein the true picture: 74% of the jobless who have been removed from unemployment calculations are in the 16-54 age bracket, with only 26% in the 55 and above bracket. Yes, the population is aging - but the heart of the workforce participation deception isn't about the old.

http://danielamerman.com/articles/2012/WorkC.html

That's a sales website. I was hoping we could gather information from something a little more substantial.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That's a sales website. I was hoping we could gather information from something a little more substantial.

Why don't you just type "Uncle!". It would save bandwidth.

[Comrade Crapski]

Jobs and GDP are old hat. This is the 21st Century, c'mon get with the program! Gay marriage and gun confiscation!

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Fair enough.

That's going to happen, however, when you hit the second-worst economic downturn in American history.

During the Great Depression, we had a gigantic influx of federal spending to supplement demand and history's largest land war to stimulate the economy.

The only serious federal spending we've committed to following this recession was four years ago, too tepid, and it was immediately followed by three times that amount in deficit reduction.

Gee, I wonder why the recovery's so slow.

It didn't happen the last time we had the "second-worst economic downturn in American history" (if that's even true). It certainly didn't happen the last time we had the second-worst economic downturn since WWI.

When are the excuses for Obama's dismal record going to end?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Why don't you just type "Uncle!". It would save bandwidth.

Because he doesn't back up any information he comes across.

No links, and he ends the article you linked to by trying to sell something.

That's not exactly what you call a remotely reliable source.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It didn't happen the last time we had the "second-worst economic downturn in American history" (if that's even true). It certainly didn't happen the last time we had the second-worst economic downturn since WWI.

When are the excuses for Obama's dismal record going to end?

I don't even understand how this is a rebuttal. What are you saying?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't even understand how this is a rebuttal. What are you saying?

What part don't you understand? How long are you going to keep making excuses for Obama instead of holding him accountable?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

What part don't you understand? How long are you going to keep making excuses for Obama instead of holding him accountable?

That's off topic. You want to start a new thread about Direckshun's apologia, I'll meet you there. I'll be the first one to post in it.

Until then, I'm unaware how relevant I am to the country's economic data.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That's off topic. You want to start a new thread about Direckshun's apologia, I'll meet you there. I'll be the first one to post in it.

Until then, I'm unaware how relevant I am to the country's economic data.

If it's off topic, why were you making excuses in the first place?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

If it's off topic, why were you making excuses in the first place?

*scratches head*

The OP outlines several economic trends. Mylonsd criticized them as a terribly slow recovery. I provided some context outlining why I believe the recovery is slow.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

*scratches head*

The OP outlines several economic trends. Mylonsd criticized them as a terribly slow recovery. I provided some context outlining why I believe the recovery is slow.

And I pointed out why your excuse was lame. Kind of like the Obama's "recovery", if we can really call it that.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by patteeu

And I pointed out why your excuse was lame. Kind of like the Obama's "recovery", if we can really call it that.

After all the O-Bot stooges like KC Naive and Drek told us the recession ended in 2009, when we have another 3 quarters of negative GDP, they'll be telling us that "Bush's recession continues", and they'll cut and paste links from american progress to confirm it.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

And I pointed out why your excuse was lame.

And I did not understand your rebuttal. Could you please clarify your point.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

And I did not understand your rebuttal. Could you please clarify your point.

You said that the recovery is slow as you'd expect it to be given that we had the 2nd worst economic downturn in US history. I don't know if it was the 2nd worst downturn or not, but for the sake of argument we'll say that it was. My rebuttal was that we didn't have a recovery this bad the last time we had the 2nd worst downturn in US history, so I don't see any reason why we should expect it this time on that basis alone.